You
Noah (our hero) performs a sacrifice after the flood
Copilot
After the flood, Noah performed a sacrifice as a gesture of thanksgiving and dedication to God. In Genesis 8:20, it is described that Noah built an altar and offered burnt offerings of clean animals and birds. This act was not a payment for sin but rather a symbolic expression of contrition, gratitude, and obedience12. God was pleased with the sacrifice and made a covenant with Noah, promising never to destroy the earth by flood again34. This event is often referred to as the Noahic Covenant3.
So it's like.. what the fuck is this.. Yahweh is doing like I don't know.. those gods of the devil worshippers where you gotta sacrifice something for it, right.. like Moloch. lol. But he's doing burnt offerings of clean animals and birds. Hey, that's nice, taking some of those creatures, obviously from the fucking ark and killing them for Yahweh. Never heard of Yahweh being into these sacrifices things like the devil worshippers.
Human sacrifice was a norm before it switched to animals. The story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac was all about it. Then it was animals and doves in the church. Now it's a monetary tithe in its place in the orthodox. Still 'sacrifice' of material things not self.
We still have a long way to go.
Sacrificing material is a hell of a lot better than sacrificing life. Besides, how else do you think the priest is going to afford his CLK55
That's correct. Doves are 20 bucks, two for 50, now move along.
Then why was God not happy when Cain offered some of his animals, and rejected that, which led to Cain murdering his brother?
It think its all about intention.
So was Cain really just envious of Abel because God accepted his brother's sacrifice and rejected his own, and then killed him out of a jealousy?
Or was it his foolish, ill-conceived attempt to please God with one more worthy that he would accept after being previously rejected, thinking God preferred human sacrifice over animal? 🤔
Interesting possibility. Who knows what Cain was really thinking or if Satan planted the idea in his mind? 🤷♂️
No, he wanted something out of it, that was with good intension.
God knew that, but he had to let free will in honor. He couldnt tell that he knew because that would interfere with free will.
So to Cain know in the most nrutral way he wasnt pleased with the intensions, Able got favored and that pissed Cain of so bad, he actually killed his brother over it.
I think he didnt do it to try best his brother by killing him.
Else he wouldnt have snarled back not being his brothers keeper
All scripture was written by man.
You should try reading instead of “talking” to chat bots sometime then:
Genesis 3:21
Genesis 4:3
Those are just in the first few dozen pages...
Genesis 3:21 refers to Adam and Eve being given their fallen corporal bodies (they were angel-like pre-fall). God doesn't sacrifice to Himself, that's ridiculous.
But I guess it doesn't matter in free Bible interpretation class. "It's just me and muh Bible, boy". I've always said the sola scriptura protestant approach is an atheist-making machine.
You'd be surprised to learn that every culture at the time (and much later) did animal sacrifices. Did you think the Ancient Greeks or Romans didn't sacrifice? The main crime Christians were convicted for in Rome was refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods.
Singling out the OT is grasping at straws. If anything, God forbid idolatry and human sacrifices the Canaanites and other people brought to Baal/Moloch.
Technically when God helps the Jews take an enemy city. The Jews are to totally destroy it and present it as an offering to God.
Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” (Numbers 21:2)
Do you the primary reason God asked people to sacrifice animals? Because pagan gods were often visualized as animals.
No it's because "god" is a bloodthirsty tyrant the same as every other deity. With the exception of Egypt and Ganesha in India, gods were depicted as human. Don't talk on matters you dont know about.
Ahem: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-gods-of-Egypt-depicted-from-the-embodiment-of-animals
You're right, to the extent that the God of the Bible punished those who engaged in human sacrifice. The child sacrificing cananites were punished by the Israelites taking their land and putting them to the sword. God will continue to punish those who sacrifice to demons those who kill those created in his image.
Don't talk on matters you don't now about.
Your changing the topic because you were called out for being wrong. I'm a Buddhist, I think all gods are bastards and choose to not worship any of them, the Bible's ripoff of Sumer's Enlil included.
Many religious have sacred animals, the Romans had sacred geese, Hindus have cows, etc. I could do more research, but you get the point.
The Bible is a lot of things, and some part even share commonality with other Middle Eastern mythology, but what it is not, is a "ripoff".
Enjoy your Buddhism, because however far you are down that path, you have some serious attachment issues showing up in your anger here. You're as far away from Nirvana as a fat guy at a buffet is from fitness.
Sacred animals are not gods. Again, have knowledge before you speak. As far as my anger, excuse me if i didn't take your opinion over my teachers' and my own. Amituofo.
If you trample a American flag, or slaughter a sacred cow, what does that act represent? Same with sacrificing a bull, which the Israealites did, and a bull was the sacred animal of moloch. He's even depicted as a bull headed god.
Have knowledge before you speak.
Interesting to see you pretend to have some sort of zen calm right now, but it's to late here, I saw through you on this topic like a window pane.
Follow your teacher, please, yes. Buddha came to at least a partial truth about suffering and attachment.
You're still changing the goal posts. You said gods were depicted as animals. The only source of moloch as a bull is a roval warring tribe, one of the least historically valuable testimonies in that they have great reason to lie and distort.
Yahweh/hawah/hayah - "was" aka that which was (perceivable) before that which is (suggested). Ones consent to any suggestion implies a sacrifice within perceivable.
Not sacrificing "animals", but "anima/animation"...hence ignoring fluid (perceivable) when holding onto solid (suggested).
Your dissection was fairly astute, in that it recognized that sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding.
Since you've decided that's your special power :) take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
Words divide by de-fin-ition. Unfortunately we use them to commune.
So I'll never downdoot you, because you serve a purpose here that others won't provide.You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
That said (oh oh):
In the beginning was The Word aka Logos (all contained in all words aka Google) plus one.
Through lower division we get wordS.
Involution/Evolution. Always return to the source: That is, put them back together as one. Then we may learn what something is, as opposed to what it is not, based off it's opposite. I'm not an ant-semantite, I just know it's limitations.
When the 'law' and the 'will' become one thing, this 'will' becomes extraneous. Until then it leads to error.
Your analytical bent would help, should you venture a little higher and look at what is behind Gematria and in fact, words, letters and number..........as ratios of ONE.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Word
a) EXO (inception towards death) towards ESO (life) implies sacrifice aka whole (motion) establishing a place for each partial (matter) by internal separation (momentum).
b) Material-ist implies ones consent to suggested material-ism, hence matter/material holding onto other matter.
a) ONE...it doesn't matter which letters are suggested; only ones consent LETTING another shape words with it.
b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials) by setting each apart from one another. The foundation for wholeness and apartheid implies ONE...for all is one in energy.
c) Words (suggested information) can only be shaped within sound (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
Power (inception towards death) generates specials (life).
Ones consent to a suggested definition implies one to be a DEAF PHONECTICIAN aka one who ignores to discern self as divine (partial) within holy (whole) of perceivable sound.
The difference between division (being against) and separation (being within) can only be discerned by self...not by consenting to the suggestions of others; which tempt one into a conflict of reason aka into division aka into ignoring self for another.
One cannot choose among suggested choices without ignoring to be choice within perceivable.
a) Few suggest chance (fortune) to tempt many to ignore choice.
b) Few suggest pluralism (we) to tempt each singular (one) to ignore self for others.
c) Few suggest commune-ism to tempt each consenting one to become part of a collectivist many.
There's no "many" in nature unless one counts other ones as many. Each one within nature is distinct; different; apart from one another. Instead of looking for difference in alike behavior...notice that each one exists at a different position from one another.
Which I try to break down within perceivable solution; like that interpretation aka interpreting action implies ones reaction to suggest an interpretation of perceivable action.
Interpreting perceivable inspiration as suggested information corrupts the one consenting to it; because then one holds onto words instead of adapting to being moved within sound.
Both answers and questions implies suggestion; only solution implies perception, hence being problem (life) within solution (inception towards death).
...which you contradicted with "the word is formed letter-by-letter". I simply describe that contradicts by taking apart both words and letters, while trying to describe SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken".
Only within whole can partials (life) have beginning (inception) and end (death).
That implies lacking self discernment of being one (partial) within oneness (whole) by trying to add to whole.
In reality...addition of one implies inception; subtraction of one implies death; multiplication of one implies intercourse for off-spring through one another, and division of one implies separation of oneness into ones.
Consenting to monotheism implies one consenting to another ones suggestion aka 1+1=2...that contradicts MONO (single; one and only).
Perception implies one; suggestion implies plus one...if one consents to it.
a) Sound remains whole; while each partial instrument within choose to put words together by LETTING each other suggest definitions for them.
b) Others suggest one to get (suggestion) so that one ignores what one got (perception). One cannot get more than reality already offers...endlessly trying to get fiction "gets one got".
The trick here is "turning"...transmuting ingredients in and out of base doesn't turn, it moves differently within (life) same direction (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "Turn around...Every now and then I get a little bit lonely...And you never coming 'round"... https://genius.com/Bonnie-tyler-total-eclipse-of-the-heart-lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo ...over one billion views yet seldom one with sight.
Law (need) coming to be will (want) aka want (life) struggling to resist temptation within need (inception towards death).
Each ones free WILL of choice within oneness of natural LAW aka balancing on land; breathing air and being solid within fluid of water.
It's logos/logic aka a conflict of reason (updoot vs downdoot)...no matter which side one chooses. Only implication (if/then aka if oneness; then ones) prevents conflicts among one another.
So you agree you will always disagree.
We're making progress already.
kek
a) Free will of choice can only exist at center of balance...others suggest agree vs disagree (imbalance) to tempt ones choice to incline towards a side, hence balancing self.
b) Ones will (life) can only exist within all way (inception towards death).
c) Does life agreeing or disagreeing with the process of dying change outcome?
Progression "makes" each one within apart from one another; those consenting to suggested pluralism (we) ignore to re-make self.